The Lexorcist

Arbitration Begins in the Home

Law students love to talk and write about how law school changes their classmates' personalities (But not their's of course - they're still the vibrant individualists that they always were). I have personally embraced this change as an often positive metamorphosis whose negative anti-social aspects will nevertheless find a way to increase my yearly salary. My brother just accepted Western as his law school of choice and is all set to join me there in September. He hasn't even had a chance to absorb that soul-altering culture shared by all law schools, but the story I'm about to recount demonstrates the results of the aformentioned Law School Influence perfectly.

As I mentioned my brother Gabe is entering his first year of Western Law as I enter my final year. Having another Flatt at Western gave me the perfect opportunity to ditch the bizarre and irritating roommate who was the subject of many of my annoyed rants on my personal blog, Flatt Like Me. Of course, as much as I clashed with my previous roommate, the nature of sibling rivalry and the basic laws of probability dicatated that it would only be a matter of time before the first clash of the Flatts. Here's an account of the dispute and its resolution. Lexis style:

Thornhill Registry No. 00004/06

DATE: 2006-08-03

INFERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: FLATT, GABRIEL J plaintiff (moving party) v. FLATT, DANIEL A and STUDENTS IN LAW INC. defendants (responding party)

COUNSEL: Parties are self-represented

BEFORE: The Honourable Justices Momma and Poppa Flatt

HEARD: 03 August 2006, at Thornhill District Court

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

[1] On 1 May 2006, the parties signed a lease as joint tenants in an apartment of the residential property at ******** in London, ON. At that time they agreed to split their rent and other sundry expenses equally as well as such apartment related duties as cleaning and organizing "sexy parties".
[2] They could not however agree on which one of them would inhabit which of the two bedrooms - in particular who would occupy the so-called 'good room' ("the good room.") The good room was distinguished from the 'crappy room' ("the other room") by the presence of a private balcony. Although neither party had any particular use for the balcony, neither could accept the prospect of the other receiving a superior domicile in exchange for admittedly equal compensation. After the parties rejected traditional negotiation methods such as Rock Paper Scissors (best two out of three), coin toss and 'roshambo' they agreed to enter arbitration before this tribunal.

[3] The plaintiff led his sole argument based on the "inertia principle" (), namely that as the eventual successor of the good room upon the defendant's departure in May 2007, he would experience a greater inconvenience by having to move his belongings from the other room to the good room. The tribunal was unconvinced by the strength of this argument which has been followed inconsistently in previous cases due to the varying ease of mitigation of damages. The defence posited that due to the close proximity of the rooms, it would be a simple matter to move the plaintiff's furniture into the freshly vacated room. The defendant offered to share the cost of mitigation by helping him move the furniture himself.

[4] The defendant countered with several compelling arguments such as the "older child" argument (Wally Cleaver v. The Beav) which was affirmed in the leading case of Brady v. Brady. The honourable arbitors held this to be good law and applicable to the present case.

[5] The defendant raised a further equitable argument, stating that since he had been forced to endure a two year cohabitation with a roommate (recognized by this tribunal as legally insane) he should be entitled to get his choice of bedroom in the new apartment. This principle of equity was followed in the so-called Perfect Strangers case (Cousin Larry v. Balki).

JUDGEMENTS:

Poppa Flatt, J. (Momma Flatt, J concurring)

[6] This board will follow its tradition of creative and "fitting" judgements. Following the tradition of my legal predecessor the right honourable King Solomon J. (Old Test.) I see it only fitting to split this coveted room in twain and granting half unto each party. We shall not follow the precedent of drawing a line down the middle of the room as was decided in the foundational property law case of Lucille Balle v. Desi Arnaz. Rather we shall divide the prize temporally by allowing the defendant to inhabit the room for the first 4 months of the academic year after which the plaintiff shall have the option to displace him if he so chooses.

[7] It is the will of this tribunal that the case be settled if both parties accept these terms. Furthermore the plaintiff shall take out the garbage after explaining his exorbitant cell phone bill and the defendant shall clean his room after putting some gas in my friggin car. If you're going to borrow it every night at least leave enough in the tank for me to get to the 7-11. You are now dismissed.

posted by DFlatt @ 10:45 PM